Bio-Tech Update:
Superweeds, Superbugs And A Loss Of Faith

The debate surrounding gene-tically modified foods (also called “GE” for genetic engineering, or “GMOs”) has focused on the potential environmental and health effects. From Europe to Canada to the United States, scientists are warning that the environmental impact of using this technology may be more damaging to the environment and may occur more quickly than we first thought.

Superweeds discovered in Canada
The first official case of “gene stacking” has been documented on a Canadian farm after only five years of growing herbicide-resistant plants. Gene stacking occurs when a plant takes on the charac-teristics of other plants with different genetics, usually through cross-pollination. In this case, a farmer was unable to rid his land of some unwanted canola and found that they were in fact “triple resistant.” The plants had devel-oped tolerance to the three herbicides that he had been using to control weeds for his three different GM canola crops. This result — confirmed after only five years of planting just three different varieties of resistant canola — supports the theory that genetic engineering will eventually produce “superweeds” for which there are less and less available resources with which to get rid of them. It also casts doubt on the industry claims that these new crops will use less chemicals to maintain, as farmers find themselves spraying combinations of herbicides to combat a problem they have not faced in the past. What might happen after say, ten or twenty years? It’s hard to say, as the GE industry has done only a few short-term studies, and is reluctant to share their results. Don’t be surprised though, if they conclude that everything is okay, and to just keep on planting.

Superbugs not far off
Scientists have also predic-ted the evolution of “superbugs,” which will not only require still more chemicals to be used on GE crops, but also present a potential catastrophe to agricultural practices worldwide. According to a Wall Street Journal article (August 5, 1999), “The potential problem exposed by a University of Arizona study is that the mating cycle of its Bt-resistant bugs was out of synch with that of regular pink bollworms. This suggests any Bt-resistant bugs that develop in the wild might only be able to mate with each other, which could trigger a population explosion of their kind.” Agricultural economist Charles Benbrook has pointed out that Bt resistance is not nearly as rare in (the class of insect) lepidopterans as Monsanto claimed, and that it is now clear that Bt-corn can adversely effect populations of key beneficial insects such as the lacewing larvae.

EPA creates restrictions on planting of GE corn
Despite claims from Mon-santo, Aventis, Pioneer, and other industry giants that genetic engineering is safe, the Environmental Protection Agency has found potential problems to be severe enough to require farmers to plant 20 to 50 percent of their acreage with conventional corn when planting GE varieties. Among the new EPA restrictions is a rule that will demand that farmers plant large ‘refuges’ of conventional corn near their Bt corn to reduce Bt pressures on insects and delay the evolution in resis-tance to pest populations. “It now seems clear that farmers who become reliant upon genetically modified crops containing the Bt gene can expect unpleasant surprises in the short term and loss of effectiveness of Bt in the medium,” explains Charles Ben-brook. “Genetically modified crops seem poised to reduce diversity on farms, reduce farm profits, and make U.S. farms even less sustainable than they already are.”

Farmers Losing Faith With the System
Many farmers who had been proponents of genetic engineering are now having second thoughts. In England, people are complaining that the government is spend-ing more on developing GE technology than on researching the possible problems, at a rate of 6 to 1. Here in the United States, that number is estimated at 600 to 1, making it difficult to fully trust in the government’s stance on these issues. The Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out potential risks including: new allergens, antibiotic resistance, the production of new toxins, the concentration of toxic metals, enhanced toxic fungi, increased weediness, gene transfer to wild relatives, change in herbicide use patterns, squandering of valuable pest susceptibility genes, poisoned wildlife, the creation of new or worse viruses, and the fact that there are unknown harms for which there still is no risk assessment.

The fact is that in the U.K., there are not enough farmers interested in participating in GE farm trials. Many simply are not willing to subject their farms to the health and environmental risks associated with GE crops. There is also the issue of lia- bility from pollen drift, for which the GE industry claims no responsibility. There are not enough farmers involved in the testing process required to get a reasonable standard for results. The government’s response… It’s okay to use fewer farmers for the trial.

The fact that insurance companies are often refusing to insure GE crops is another sure (and unpublicized) example of the instability of this industry, and further evidence of who the real winners and losers will be.